5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lived until his arrest in St. Petersburg. He is serving a sentence of life imprisonment.
6.  On 18 May 2006 the Kalininskiy District Court of St. Petersburg found the applicant guilty of unintentional manslaughter and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.
7.  On 10 December 2008 the St. Petersburg City Court, by a jury verdict, found the applicant guilty of several counts of aggravated robbery and murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant was represented by Ms D. as counsel. On 5 March 2009 the judgment was upheld on appeal and became final.
8.  From 23 December 2002 to 8 October 2010 the applicant was detained in temporary detention facility IZ-47/1 in St. Petersburg, known as “Kresty”. He stated that the cells had been extremely overcrowded, with cells nos. 899, 907, 90, 74, 184 and 411, where he had been detained between 2002 and 2004, housing from seven to nine inmates and the cells where he was detained between 2004 and December 2008 accommodating between five and eight inmates. According to the applicant, each cell measured 8 square metres. Daily searches were performed in the cells, during which warders deliberately destroyed inmates’ personal belongings.
9.  On 10 December 2008 the applicant was transferred to wing 2/1 of the facility and was placed in cell no. 128, which also measured 8 square metres and where he was detained alone. Wing 2/1 was allegedly designed for the detention of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment. Up to 8 October 2010 he was held in a number of similar cells, where he was always kept alone. The cells did not have a table or chair. A concrete platform served as a bed. The cells were not equipped with an artificial ventilation system. They had a small window which had three rows of metal bars and was covered by a metal mesh which separated the window from the rest of the cell. It did not allow access to fresh air. As a result the cells were extremely stuffy. A video camera was installed in the corner “to spy on inmates” and as a result the applicant did not have privacy even when using the toilet. It was extremely cold in winter. A lavatory pan and a sink were installed side by side in the corner of the cell, not separated from the living area by a door or partition. The applicant could only have a shower once a week for fifteen minutes. A small 60-watt lamp was installed above the cell door. It produced very little light, making it impossible to read or write in the cell. The applicant was allowed a daily hour-long walk in a recreation yard. On court hearing days that walk was cancelled.
10.  In response to numerous complaints by the applicant pertaining to the conditions of his detention and the quality of the medical care, various prosecution authorities informed him that the conditions were satisfactory save for minor irregularities pertaining to the absence of a bench in the cell, for instance, and that the applicant had received adequate medical assistance whenever he had asked for it. The applicant provided the Court with copies of the prosecutors’ letters.
(b)  The Government’s version of events
11.  Relying on certificates issued by the director of facility IZ-47/1 in 2012, the Government noted that the applicant had been detained in that facility from 23 December 2002 until 8 October 2010, save for the period between 14 August and 23 October 2003 when he had been transferred to facility IZ-47/6 in the Leningrad Region.
12.  The Government further submitted that until 10 December 2008 the applicant had usually been detained in cells measuring 8 square metres and equipped with four sleeping places. The cells housed four inmates. The Government could not provide the Court with copies of inmate population logs to support their submissions concerning the number of detainees as the logs had been destroyed following the expiry of the statutory storage period. The cells had been equipped with a properly functional artificial ventilation system. The light in the cells was both natural and artificial: daylight entered through a 1.1-square-metre window covered with four horizontal and seven vertical metal bars. A 60-watt electric bulb and an emergency 40-watt bulb also provided light in the cells. There was a lavatory pan in the corner of each cell, separated from the living area by a 1.5-metre wooden partition. The applicant could take an hour-long daily walk in one of the seventy-three recreation yards of the facility. The Government accepted that from 23 December 2002 to 10 December 2008 the applicant’s conditions of detention had been incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention on account of overcrowding and the resulting lack of personal space.
13.  From 10 December 2008 until 8 October 2010 the applicant had been kept in solitary confinement, alone in 8-square-metre cells equipped with two sleeping places. The solitary confinement had been a consequence of the applicant’s sentencing to life imprisonment on 10 December 2008. The other conditions of the applicant’s detention during that time had been similar to those in which he had been detained together with other inmates.
14.  On 8 October 2010 the applicant was sent to correctional facility IK‑ 56 in the Sverdlovsk Region (commonly known as “the Black Golden Eagle”) where he arrived on 4 November 2010 and has remained ever since, save for short visits to prison hospitals (see below for details).
15.  In compliance with the requirements of Russian law, the applicant, having been sentenced to life imprisonment, had to be detained in a cell and not in a dormitory. He submitted that he had already occupied a number of cells where the conditions of detention had been identical. Relying on handwritten statements by inmates from facility IK-56, he provided the following description of the conditions of his detention.
The cell measured approximately 18 square metres and housed one other inmate. He could not leave the cell without authorisation and was not allowed to move freely around the premises of the facility. The cell was not equipped with a lavatory pan or running water as the facility did not have a centralised water-supply or sewage systems. Inmates were provided with a bucket of water for their daily needs: for drinking, washing themselves and cleaning the bucket which they used as a lavatory. The water was obtained from the local river and was not clean. In the morning the bucket was emptied into a cesspool outside the building, behind the walls of the recreation yards. The bucket serving as a lavatory was not separated from the rest of the cell, thus offering no privacy. An unpleasant odour lingered in the cell. The heating system did not function properly. It was thus extremely cold in winter, when the temperature outside dropped below minus 30 or 40 degrees Celsius. The cell was not equipped with a ventilation shaft, thus it was stuffy and damp. Dim light penetrated into the cell through a small window covered with several rows of metal bars. The window was separated from the rest of the cell by a metal mesh which had small casings measuring five by five centimetres. The food provided in the facility was of poor quality. In 2011 the applicant was repeatedly given fish containing worms. He attached these worms to his complaints to the prosecutor’s office.
16.  The applicant also submitted that he was allowed a daily walk of no more than two hours in one of the five recreation yards which measured 6‑9 square metres. He and his cellmate could bathe for fifteen minutes once a week in a room of no more than nine square metres where they used a small basin to pour water.
(b)  The Government’s version of events
17.  The Government produced certificates from the facility director and gave the following description of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in facility IK-56.
After his arrival at the facility and until 28 June 2012 the applicant was detained in cells which measured 18 square metres. He shared a cell with another inmate. After 28 June 2012 the applicant occupied alone cells which measured 4 or 18 square metres. The cells had ventilation shafts. Each cell had a window measuring between 0.3 square metres and 0.6 square metres with a small casing which could be opened for fresh air. There were metal bars on the window but these did not block access to fresh air. There was a grille formed by vertical and horizontal bars on the windows which was 100 millimetres in width and 170 millimetres in length. One or two 100-watt bulbs lit the cells during the day. At night a 40-watt bulb was kept on. Facility IK-56, built in 1982, was not equipped with centralised water-supply or sewage systems. A bucket was kept in each cell to be used as a lavatory. It was separated by a metre-high wooden partition from the living area. The distance between the lavatory bucket and the dinner table was no less than one metre, and the distance between the bucket and the closest bunk slightly less than three metres. Inmates were also given 30-litre cans of drinking water. The water was obtained from an electric water-pumping station in a nearby village. The applicant was allowed to take daily one-and-a-half-hour outdoor walks in the recreations yards. The yards were covered by wire netting attached to the concrete walls surrounding the yards, which served as a roof. The sanitary conditions were satisfactory. The food was obtained by the head of the canteen from a storage facility. The quality of the food was checked on a daily basis by a duty officer and a prison doctor. The food was stored in the facility in conditions which protected it from theft or infection. The preparation of the food was carried out in the presence of a medical assistant and the duty officer. The applicant could take a shower once a week in a bathing facility in which cold and hot water were provided by an autonomous boiler.
18.  The Government supported their submissions by attaching plans of every cell in which the applicant had been detained and of the recreation yards in the correctional facility. The plans were hand-drawn. It appears from the materials presented that the facility had eight recreation yards, the smallest one measuring 7 square metres and the biggest measuring 18 square metres. Each yard was equipped with a bench and had a small cover to protect it from rain.
19.  According to the applicant’s submissions, in 2009 he was diagnosed with a gastric ulcer, hemorrhoids and fragile joints. He insisted that these illnesses were the direct result of his having been detained in appalling conditions for so many years. He applied for medical assistance. A prison nurse dismissed the request, noting that the applicant’s case did not require medical care. On further occasions when the applicant sought medical care, prison doctors refused to treat him, citing a lack of funds and medicine. The applicant complained to a prosecutor’s office on 21 April 2009 but received no response. In June 2009 he hurt his leg while descending from a bunk. He lodged a large number of complaints with the head of the detention facility, seeking medical assistance and, in particular, an X-ray examination of his leg. Following a complaint to a prosecutor’s office the applicant was examined by a prison surgeon who then threatened the applicant with violence and forbade him to ever complain again.
20.  In June 2011 the applicant was sent outside to empty lavatory buckets into the cesspool. He slipped and fell, injuring his knee joint. The applicant complained that prison doctors merely provided him with painkillers in response to his claims for medical assistance. As a result he could not use his knee joint fully and his movement was restricted.
21.  In June 2011 the applicant was detained in a cell immediately after it had been occupied by inmates suffering from an open form of tuberculosis. The cell was not disinfected before the applicant was placed in it. On 24 April 2012 the applicant was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis of the right lung in the disintegration phase. His requests for treatment were not responded to or were dismissed, despite the fact that his illness had progressed. Furthermore, in February 2012 it was recommended that he have surgery to remove an inguinal (groin) hernia. The correctional facility officials took no steps to arrange the surgery.
22.  The applicant provided the Court with copies of the authorities’ – including prosecutors’ – responses to his complaints about the conditions of detention in the correctional facility and lack of medical assistance during his detention, and stated that all his attempts to draw attention to his problems had been to no avail.
23.  Relying on a handwritten copy of the applicant’s medical record and a typed version of the same, the Government argued that upon the applicant’s admission to facility IZ-47/1 he had been examined by prison doctors. Further examinations had been carried out on the applicant’s transfer to the correctional facility and after his arrival at that facility. Each time the applicant had been found to be in satisfactory health. The applicant had undergone annual medical check-ups. He had received treatment for a gastric ulcer and a soft tissue bruise on his leg.
24.  According to the applicant’s medical record, during his detention in facility IZ-47/1 he was attended to by prison doctors and a psychiatrist. He also underwent a number of chest X-ray examinations which did not reveal any indication of tuberculosis. The first X-ray examination was performed in November 2003. After being diagnosed with a gastric ulcer in 2006, the applicant was treated and the illness went into remission. He was subsequently examined by a prison doctor on a regular basis. In March 2009, after the applicant complained of stomach pain, he was diagnosed with a relapse of gastric ulcer and was prescribed treatment. A two-month drug regimen led to a substantial improvement in the applicant’s condition. His satisfactory condition was confirmed by an in-depth medical examination and tests, including a gastroscopy.
25.  On three occasions in the second half of 2009 the applicant complained about a leg injury. On each occasion he was examined by a surgeon and was sent back to the detention facility in good health. The surgeon did not find any signs of a serious injury; a small bruise on the left leg had been noted on the first examination in June 2009 but it was no longer visible on his subsequent visits to the doctor.
26.  In 2010 the prison medical personnel, including a physician and a surgeon, continued to closely supervise the applicant in respect of his ulcer and hemorrhoids. If a relapse was suspected, the applicant was provided with treatment and was assigned a special diet. He was also subjected to gastroscopy testing and the doctors’ recommendations were adjusted to take account of the results.
27.  On the applicant’s arrival at the correctional facility on 4 November 2010 a doctor examined him. The doctor noted the history of the applicant’s gastric problem and also recorded the results of the most recent chest fluorography examination, which had not revealed any pathology.
28.  A week after his arrival at the colony, the applicant complained of stomach pains and heartburn. He was placed on an emergency drug regimen and sent for specific tests. He was found to be suffering from a moderately acute gastric ulcer and he started receiving extensive drug treatment and was placed on special diet. The acute condition was entirely relieved by the beginning of 2011. He remained under the medical supervision of the prison doctors, who recorded his condition as improving. He also underwent regular gastroscopy testing and continued with the treatment and diet.
29.  In June 2011, after complaining about a pain in the right knee joint and explaining that he had had a serious knee injury more than ten years before, the applicant was examined by a surgeon, underwent an X-ray examination of the knee joint and was diagnosed with post-traumatic arthritis of the right knee joint. He started receiving treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs and pain relievers. As the treatment did not produce any positive improvement, a surgeon performed a knee joint puncture, put the applicant’s right leg in plaster and prescribed bed rest. The applicant’s drug regimen was amended. At the end of July 2011 the plaster was removed and the applicant’s leg was bandaged. Regular visits from a surgeon led to slight changes to the drug regimen. In October 2011 the applicant completed his treatment, which was considered a success. At the same time, he also underwent a gastroscopy and a chest X-ray. Both tests showed the applicant to be in good health.
30.  The prison personnel continued to address the applicant’s complaints whenever he had any. He was treated by a dentist and was consulted by and received treatment from a surgeon in respect of a groin hernia. He was sent to the surgical department of the prison hospital for it to be determined whether he needed surgery for the hernia and knee joint problems. As these operations were not considered urgent, the applicant continued with his treatment in the correctional facility.
31.  On 2 May 2012 a tuberculosis specialist diagnosed the applicant with infiltrative tuberculosis of the upper lobe of the right lung in the dissolution phase. The diagnosis was based on the results of an X-ray examination in April 2012 which had revealed shadows of infiltration with dissolution caverns in the applicant’s lung. The applicant underwent clinical blood analysis and sputum smear testing and started receiving treatment with isoniazid, rifampicin, ethambutol, pyrazinamide and streptomycin. He was prescribed an enriched food regimen and transferred to the tuberculosis unit of the correctional facility. Two weeks later the applicant complained of severe stomach pain which the doctors connected to a relapse of the gastric ulcer against the background of the heavy antibacterial drug regimen. The applicant’s treatment was changed in view of these added health issues. When the relapse of the ulcer had been resolved, the applicant continued with primary antibacterial treatment. He was also regularly tested in order for any improvements or deterioration in the illness to be recorded. In November 2012 the applicant was sent to a tuberculosis hospital in the town of Ivdel, as the prison tuberculosis specialist considered that he needed a more in-depth analysis in a specialised medical facility. On the applicant’s transfer to the tuberculosis hospital sputum smear tests no longer showed traces of active tuberculosis bacteria.
32.   It can be seen from a certificate sent by the Ivdel Town prosecutor to the director of correctional facility IK-56 that several rounds of tests performed in the tuberculosis hospital demonstrated that the applicant was sputum smear-negative. The applicant’s condition was considered satisfactory. A medical panel which performed an expert assessment of the applicant at his request found that he could not be classed as disabled. The hospital doctors recommended a slight amendment to the applicant’s drug regimen and he was sent back to correctional facility IK-56 for in-patient treatment.